DE LA ROCHA v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., CIV 2:11-cv-2789-KJM-JFM (PS). (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120321849
Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOHN F. MOULDS, District Judge. Pending before the court is plaintiffs' February 6, 2012 "ex parte emergency petition for declaratory judgment, first amendment redress." Doc. No. 37. Although the precise nature of this petition is unclear, it appears that plaintiffs are requesting judgment in their favor due to defendants' alleged failure to respond to certain correspondences that plaintiffs mailed to them. See Pet. at 3-5. Plaintiffs argue that defendants, through their failure to re
Summary: ORDER JOHN F. MOULDS, District Judge. Pending before the court is plaintiffs' February 6, 2012 "ex parte emergency petition for declaratory judgment, first amendment redress." Doc. No. 37. Although the precise nature of this petition is unclear, it appears that plaintiffs are requesting judgment in their favor due to defendants' alleged failure to respond to certain correspondences that plaintiffs mailed to them. See Pet. at 3-5. Plaintiffs argue that defendants, through their failure to res..
More
ORDER
JOHN F. MOULDS, District Judge.
Pending before the court is plaintiffs' February 6, 2012 "ex parte emergency petition for declaratory judgment, first amendment redress." Doc. No. 37. Although the precise nature of this petition is unclear, it appears that plaintiffs are requesting judgment in their favor due to defendants' alleged failure to respond to certain correspondences that plaintiffs mailed to them. See Pet. at 3-5. Plaintiffs argue that defendants, through their failure to respond to the correspondences, have implicitly consented to judgment for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert that "Defendants have admitted via non-responsiveness to the wrongdoing and/or violations of law." Pet. at 6. Because there is no legal basis for this conclusion and because the relief plaintiffs seek by way of their motion is duplicative of the relief they seek in their complaint, this request will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' February 6, 2012 petition is denied.
Source: Leagle
